This is a follow-up to yesterday's post on being an atheist in the queer community. But I think it will be of interest to anyone, individual or organization, who wants to be an ally with atheists and the atheist movement.
So what do atheists want from their allies?
And how can progressive non-atheist people and groups be good allies with the atheist movement?
Yesterday, I posted a piece about how difficult I was finding it to be an out atheist in the LGBT community. Since I don't like to gripe for the sake of griping without offering any solutions, today I'm offering my suggestions for what atheists want: my prescription for how progressive believers can, if they want, be supportive of atheists, and allies with the atheist movement.
A quick disclaimer first: While I suspect that a lot of atheists will more or less agree with much of this list, I really am speaking only for myself here. Atheists are notoriously independent, and they don't like having other people speak for them. (Any atheists reading this: If you have disagreements with this list or things you'd like to add, please speak up in the comments.)
1: Familiarize yourself with the common myths and misconceptions about atheists -- and don't perpetuate them.
There's a lot of misunderstanding and ignorance about who atheists are and what we do and don't believe. Needless to say, these myths and misconceptions are wrong. Don't believe them. Don't perpetuate them. Don't let them infect the way you speak and act, and please speak out against them when you hear them. Find out what we actually think and believe and do, instead of what anti- atheist propaganda says about what we think and believe and do.
Sam Harris has written a pretty good list of the most common myths about atheists, with short arguments against them. There's a touch of needless snark in the piece, IMO -- Harris can't quite resist the temptation to get in a few digs against religion when he should probably just be explaining atheism -- but overall, it gives a good, concise view of the most common misconceptions about atheism, and why, exactly, they're mistaken.
I'm just going to add one quick thing to Harris's list before I move on: The myth that atheists are 100% certain that there is no God, with a dogmatic attachment to that belief.
In reality, I've encountered almost no atheists who thought that God's existence had been definitely disproved. Atheism doesn't mean being 100% certain that God doesn't exist. It just means being certain enough. We're about as certain that Jehovah doesn't exist (or Yahweh, or Allah, or Ganesh, or the Goddess, or any of the gods that are commonly worshipped today) as we are that Zeus doesn't exist. If you don't think you're close-minded for not believing in Zeus, then please don't accuse atheists of being close-minded for not believing in your god.
2: Familiarize yourself with what it's like to be an atheist, both in the U.S. and in the rest of the world.
Discrimination against atheists, in the United States, and around the world, is very real. It doesn't look exactly like other forms of discrimination -- no form of discrimination looks exactly like any other -- but it is real.
Here are just a few examples.
According to a recent Gallup Poll, asking Americans who they'd be willing to vote for for President, atheists came in at the very bottom of the list: below blacks, below women, below Jews, below gays. Below every other marginalized group on the list. With less than half of Americans saying they'd vote for an atheist. Unless you live in a incredibly progressive district, being an out atheist will effectively kill any chances you have at a political career.
Atheists in the military have been illegally proselytized at, berated, called a disgrace, denied promotion, had meetings broken up, and been threatened with charges... all by superior officers, and all because of their atheism.In her recent Senate campaign, Elizabeth Dole issued a series of campaign flyers and videos, centering on the fact that her opponent, Kay Hagan, had attended a fundraiser hosted by two atheist lobbyists... a campaign that openly referred to atheists as "vile," that treated the very existence of atheists as an abomination, and that used language about atheists that would have raised a tidal wave of shock and denunciation around the country if it had been aimed at any other religious group.
And especially in small rural towns, anti-atheist bigotry can turn truly ugly. Being an out atheist means risking ostracism and worse. Out atheist teenagers have been kicked out of public school programs, and then kicked out of public school. Out atheists have been the targets of vandalism and death threats. Even believers can be targeted with anti- atheist ostracism, threats, and vandalism, if they're perceived as being atheists because of their stance on separation of church and state (such as the anti- intelligent- design activists in Dover, Pennsylvania).
And I'm just talking about the U.S., where atheists are, at least in theory, guaranteed equal protection and freedom of non-religion under the 1st and 14th amendments. I'm not even talking about overt theocracies, where denying the existence of God will earn you a death sentence.
This stuff is real. And there's a lot more. These examples have barely scratched the surface. We are pissed off for a reason. Please don't trivialize it.
3: Find common ground.
Religious believers might think there's no way for them to be allies with atheists. Aren't atheists trying to do away with religion? How can you be allies with someone who thinks your most cherished beliefs are a myth, and wants to rid the world of them?
Okay. First, not all atheists are trying to do away with religion. Many atheists are fine with religion, as long as it's respectful of people who don't share it. They just don't believe it themselves, and just want to be left alone to give what they have to the world and to practice their lack of faith in peace. If all religions minded their own business, if religions didn't have the depressingly common habit of demonizing people who don't agree with them and shoving themselves down everybody else's throat... most of us wouldn't care about it very much.
Second: Even the atheists who would like to see religion disappear, and who are actively working to make that happen, still passionately support religious freedom. We don't want to make religion disappear by law, or coercion, or even social disapproval. We want to make religion disappear by persuasion. We want to convince people, in an open marketplace of ideas, that religion is mistaken. Even the most strongly and rudely anti- religion atheists I know are passionate in their defense of religious freedom, and of people's right to believe whatever crazy bullshit they want as long as they don't inflict it on other people.
And even though atheists obviously think religion is a mistaken idea about the world, and believers obviously don't... well, we don't have to agree about everything to work together. Atheists and progressive believers have a lot of common ground: a passionate support of religious freedom, a fervent belief in the separation of church and state, an intense respect for diversity. The fact that we don't agree about the existence or non-existence of God doesn't mean we can't work together on issues we share.
4: Speak out against anti-atheist bigotry and other forms of religious intolerance.
If you're white, it's important to speak up about racism. If you're male, it's important to speak up about sexism. If you're straight, it's important to speak up about homophobia. Etc.
And if you're a religious believer, it's important to speak up about anti-atheist bigotry and ignorance. Familiarize yourself with the common myths about atheism and the truth about those myths (see above)... and when you hear someone repeat the myths, speak out.5: Be inclusive of atheists.
Remember that not everybody is a religious believer. And I don't just mean that not everybody belongs to a traditional religious organization. Many people have no religious or spiritual beliefs at all. So if you're talking to a group, don't ask people to pray. Don't talk about "our Creator." Don't talk about the spirit that moves within all of us. I don't have a creator, and I don't have a spirit, and I don't pray.
If you want to talk about your own religious beliefs, then please, by all means, go ahead and do so. Say that you're going to pray. Tell us about your creator. Talk about the spirit that moves within you. But don't assume that everyone you're talking to shares your beliefs, or indeed has any religious beliefs at all. Don't -- as a commenter in this blog observed at a No on Prop 8 rally -- talk about the wonderful work churches are doing for your movement, and the wonderful work being done by people who don't go to church but still believe in God, and neglect to mention the people who don't believe in God but still passionately support your cause. In the same way that (I hope) you try to remember that there are probably people in your audience who aren't white, or college-educated, or able-bodied, or whatever, please try to remember that there are probably people in your audience who aren't religious or spiritual.
(And don't do fake inclusion, either. Saying, "No matter what your religious beliefs or lack thereof are, let's all pray or meditate," is like saying, "No matter what your religious beliefs are, let's all give thanks to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." No matter how good your intentions are, it’s not inclusive. It's a back-handed slap.)
6: Don't divide and conquer, and don't try to take away our anger.
Don't divide us into "good atheists" and "bad atheists" based on how vocal or angry we are. Don't say things like, "Well, you seem reasonable -- but that Richard Dawkins and that Christopher Hitchens, they're just so mean and intolerant!"
I hope I don't have to tell you about the ugly history of dividing activists for social change into "the good ones" who are polite and soft-spoken and easy for the privileged power structure to get along with, and "the bad ones" who are angry, rabble- rousing trouble- makers. I hope I don't have to explain about the not- no- subtle message behind it: "We're fine with you as long as you don't speak up too loudly, and don't make us too uncomfortable, and don't ask for too much."
Like every other movement for social change I can think of, the atheist movement has its more diplomatic members and its more confrontational ones. And like every other movement for social change I can think of, the atheist movement needs both. It's more powerful with both. Both methods together work better than either one would work on its own.
Besides, we all know that Hitchens is an asshole. It's not news to us.
7: If you're going to accuse an atheist or an atheist group of being intolerant -- be careful, and make sure that's really what they're being.
Atheists often get accused of being intolerant for saying things like, "I don't agree with you," or, "You haven't made your case," or, "I think you're mistaken -- and here, exactly, is why." Atheists often get accused of bigotry when, in fact, they've been very careful to criticize specific ideas and actions rather than insult entire classes of people. Atheists often get accused of being close-minded for firmly stating their case and saying that, unless they see some good evidence or arguments to the contrary, they're going to stand by it. Atheists, as Richard Dawkins recently pointed out, often get accused of being insulting or hateful for discussing religion in the kind of language that is commonly accepted in political opinion pieces or restaurant reviews.
It's totally fucked up. Please don't do that.
Here's the thing. Atheists see religion as (among other things) a hypothesis about the world: an explanation for how the world works and why it is the way it is. We think that, as such, it should be willing to defend itself in the marketplace of ideas, on an even playing field. And we see the "criticism of religion is inherently intolerant" trope as one of the chief ways religion avoids having to do that. It totally gets up our nose.
As someone whose name I can't remember recently said: Religion has been discussed in hushed tones for so long, that when people talk about it in a normal tone of voice, it sounds like we're screaming. But most of us are not screaming. Most of us are talking in a normal tone of voice... for the first time in our lives.
8: Do not -- repeat, DO NOT -- talk about "fundamentalist atheists."
If you think an atheist or an atheist group is being intolerant, or bigoted, or close-minded, then by all means, say that they're being intolerant or bigoted or close-minded. But please, for the sweet love of all that is beautiful in this world, do not call them "fundamentalist atheists." The "fundamentalist" canard makes most atheists want to scream and tear our hair out. It's a problem for three reasons:
1: It's inaccurate. Atheists do not have a text or a set of basic principles to which they strictly and literally adhere... which is what the word "fundamentalist" means. (See "common myths about atheists" above.)
2: It perpetuates the myth that atheism is just another form of dogmatic religious faith... which it most emphatically is not. (Again, see "common myths about atheists" above.)
3: It divides the atheist movement into the "good" ones and the "bad" ones: the good ones who keep their mouths shut, and the bad ones who speak their opinions loudly and firmly. (See "don't divide and conquer" above.)
Think of the phrase "fundamentalist atheist" as an epithet. If you insist on using it, you should expect that no atheist will listen to anything else you say.
Finally -- and I think this may be the hardest for a lot of people, especially in the LGBT community:
9: Be aware of how religious belief gives you a place of mainstream and privilege.
This is a lot less true for believers in minority religions, like Jews and Muslims in the U.S. But even though the specifics of your belief marginalize you, the fact that you have belief at all does give you some privilege that you may not be aware of.
The assumption that everyone believes in some sort of God is so widespread as to be practically invisible. And the assumption that morality must stem from religious faith is incredibly pervasive. Many religious believers -- even the more hard-core ones, maybe especially the more hard-core ones -- are more trusting of other religious believers whose beliefs they don't share than they are of atheists. (Look again at "what it's like to be an atheist" above... and look again the Gallup Poll about how atheists are considered less qualified to be President than any other group that was polled about.)
And if you are a Christian? Forget about it. If you are a Christian in the United States, then -- when it comes to this particular area of the "privilege/ marginalization" palette -- your Christianity puts you squarely in the "privileged mainstream" category. Christians are in the clear majority in the United States, and they are in the clear mainstream of politics and culture. You're not being thrown to the lions anymore. You haven't been thrown to the lions for almost 2,000 years. You are in the group that is running the show.
And that's fine. That doesn't make you a bad person. When it comes to the "privilege/ marginalization" palette, most people have some of both. I am privileged as a white person, a college- educated person, a middle- to- upper- middle class person, a more or less able bodied person, an American. I am marginalized as a woman, a queer, a bisexual, a fat person, an atheist. And my privileges don't confer wickedness onto me, any more than my marginalizations confer virtue.
But my privileges do confer some responsibilities. They confer the responsibility to educate myself about the experiences of marginalized people, and the myths about them. To speak out against bigotry, even and especially when it isn't against me. To not assume that everyone is just like me. To remember that passionate anger is as important to a movement as gentle diplomacy. To learn what kind of language people prefer when talking about them, and what kind of language totally sets their teeth on edge. (Which is just good manners anyway.) To tread carefully when I'm criticizing marginalized people, and to make sure I know what the hell I'm talking about.
And to not act like a victim when my privilege is questioned, or indeed simply pointed out.I do think progressive movements -- the LGBT community, as well as others -- should be making alliances with the atheist movement. If for no other reason, I think it's a smart choice pragmatically. Like I said yesterday, the atheist movement is just beginning to get off the ground, and it's already come very far in a very short time, both in terms of numbers and in terms of visibility. IMO, in the coming years and decades, it's going to be a force to be reckoned with. You want to get in on the ground floor here, people.
And it's also, you know, the right thing to do.
If you want to do that, I think this is a good place to start.
What do you think?
Addendum: I have, alas, had to turn off the comments on this post, as the comment thread has gone both completely off-topic and completely toxic. I've opened a new post -- How To Be An Ally with Atheists: The Actual Thread -- for anyone who wants to discuss the actual topic of this post. (And yes, I am all too aware of the irony of this particular post being the one where the comments went toxic.)
Important note: Please do not use the new comment thread to revive this original shut-down thread. Any attempt to do so will result in being banned from this blog. Thank you.
Pig:
Never mind that Chamberlain has a bad reputation not only because he appeased, but because of who he appeased.Pig:
There are far more options than the day-age argument, such as treating Genesis as some vague metaphor or just throwing out Genesis altogether, both of which avoid the difficulties that you mention.Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | December 19, 2008 at 10:54 AM
And yet another reminder to everyone: Please keep this debate civil. This is not Pharyngula: I expect a basic level of respect, courtesy, and non- personal- name- calling in my comments. The next person who uses a personal insult towards another guest in this blog will be disemvowelled.
(I'd like to ask you to keep it on topic as well, but I suppose that's a lost cause. Before you comment, however, I would like you to ask yourself what it is you're saying to the rest of the people reading this thread about what atheists are like as allies.)
Posted by: Greta Christina | December 19, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Here's the first time that the term "Uncle Tom" came up in this thread--from yours truly:
Which, on its face, is merely a statement that collaboration--the "Uncle Tom" phenomenon--is real. That it is a real-life phenomenon that educated observers should expect to encounter when a minority group finds itself oppressed by a majority.As a result, the fact that a handful of members of an oppressed minority are (as Robin noticed) willing to join the ignorant/bigoted majority in bashing their fellow members of the minority fails to show that the in-group bashers are correct.
That collaboration exists is a simple fact, regardless of whether anyone in particular deems it acceptable to say so. Anyone who is actually interested in dealing with the problems that oppression causes will recognize that.
Clear: a plea for a particular tone in the comments thread of her own blog.Then, to the "namecalling" trope, here's our hostess:
But then, here she is in the OP:
Now, goodness, wouldn't calling an atheist or an atheist group "intolerant, or bigoted, or close-minded" be name-calling? Of course it would--which suggests (as do the actual reasons she gave for her "no 'fundamentalist atheist'-calling" stance) that Greta's point is something other than the absurd "No name-calling EVAR" she has been straw-manned into.The invocation of "Uncle Tom" here has not been simple name-calling, and Greta's position is not simple opposition to name-calling. It would be nice if this thread involved actual nuanced discussion of the real oppression Greta identified and the consequences it has, rather than bad-faith strawmen that serve only to distract attention from the issues she raised.
Posted by: Rieux | December 19, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Ramsey
Would it have been better if he called them Mbekis?
Okay, if aren't follow events in Zimbabwe, you might miss the reference, but it amounts to the same thing.
Posted by: Pig | December 19, 2008 at 11:41 AM
The first doesn't work due to how the Jesus myth* played out. The perfect man had to die for the perfect man's sins, which ties the OT to the NT, and dying for a strained metaphor doesn't cut it.
The second, makes the Bible fallible, thus not the word of God, and thus questionable in its authenticity as a whole.
*Okay, just to clarify, I figure there probably was a guy called Jesus who developed a following in that period who got crucified, however enough got added, subtracted, redacted, altered in translation, spun and victimised by poetic license to make his story more myth than fact. Besides, nobody is ever quite the way stories portray them.
Posted by: Pig | December 19, 2008 at 11:51 AM
There is a difference between criticizing actions and beliefs -- even harshly criticizing actions and beliefs -- and issuing personal insults. It is a line that has been crossed in some of the comments in this comment thread. I'm asking you all to please refrain from doing that, and to dial down the toxic tone.
The commenters in this blog are, of course, free to take and to foster whatever tone they like in their own blogs. But I try to maintain a basic tone of respect, civility, and cutting one another slack in my blog. Please respect that. Thank you.
Posted by: Greta Christina | December 19, 2008 at 12:03 PM
The use of a name can provide a form of shorthand if the meaning is clear, such that an argument that appears to bear the characteristics of being an "Uncle Tom" argument, can in fact be called as such.
Neville Chamberlain also serves such a function (Which is sort of the worst possible fate for a politician may I add) as he has come to symbolise appeasement at the expense of what is right.
Posted by: Pig | December 19, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Greta Christina
Sorry, I know I am one of the culprits.
Posted by: Pig | December 19, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Quoth our hostess:
Absolutely--a big difference. A word like "name-calling" tends to bury that distinction.Posted by: Rieux | December 19, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Pig:
I think you'd be surprised at the, um, creativity of moderate/liberal theists in dealing with these issues. (You might also wonder why they bother with such creativity, but ...)Anyway, trying to get back on topic ...
I think, Greta, that this has been your sticking point:
I'm sure that you did NOT mean to send a message like this: "Your reasons for finding Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. are illegitimate and sinister and you should stifle your complaints about them." Unfortunately, that's pretty much what you ended up doing.Hitchens, in his original edition of God Is Not Great, repeated the anti-Semitic canard about Orthodox Jews having sex through a sheet. I already mentioned Dawkins' encounters with the Hitler Zombie. Taner Edis has criticized Sam Harris for being atrociously bad at understanding the Muslims that he lambasts. Given that prominent atheists bring some pretty shoddy stuff to the table, it's pretty unreasonable for you to expect theists not to complain about this stuff and not to praise atheists who make a good faith effort to not be shoddy.
Furthermore, it looks like you are trying to minimize the real concerns of theists by saying that they are just a masked way to complain about atheists being more vocal. Sometimes it is a mask, but not always. Sometimes it's a case of atheists falling into the Gadfly Corollary trap and theists responding likewise.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | December 19, 2008 at 01:15 PM
Errm, the above should read "Your reasons for finding Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. 'mean and intolerant' are illegitimate and sinister ...."
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | December 19, 2008 at 01:17 PM
Ramsey
I don't accept the Dawkins Hitler Zombie argument - Chamberlain wasn't a Nazi and isn't used simply to reference Nazis, but rather to reference the concept of appeasement.
That said:
Well, here is the issue:
Criticise them, fine.
But what I see Greta as saying is closer to this: don't lump very different atheists together, who are united in only on thing - how vocal they are as atheists - as bad atheists.
Don't make being a vocal atheist, what qualifies somebody as a bad atheist.
An atheist can be a bad person, just like any member of any minority can be a bad person, but being vocal isn't what makes them bad.
The RRS is an example of vocal atheists who have a lot wrong with them, but it isn't that they are vocal that makes them a problem, it is that they get their facts wrong and claim airs which they haven't earned yet.
If you are going to criticise them, criticise them as individuals or as individual groups even, don't divide atheists into the "Good atheists" who keep schtum, and the "Bad atheists" who speak out.
Posted by: Pig | December 19, 2008 at 01:57 PM
J.J. Ramsey,
YOU are the one going on about Nazis, just saying.
Also, while I would not bring Nazis into it myself, I don't think you get to say for free that Nazis are somehow categorically more evil than creationists (or even moderate religionists.) When I follow your writing here I see you repeatedly and inaccurately restate other people's arguments and with each restatement make them seem more absurd.
This may be all well and good when the point is to win rather than arrive at some sort of truth or understanding. Otherwise it is just a pain in the ass.
Posted by: Jim Robinson | December 19, 2008 at 05:04 PM
I had a great experience in a social justice training where I shared my experience of exclusion as an atheist child in a very Christian community in the form of being silent during "under god" of the Pledge of Allegiance. Afterward, a participant who is my colleague and also is a minister came to me and told me it had been a life-changing moment. He told me "I said to God 'God, I'm in the room with atheists.' And God said, 'You're right where you're supposed to be.'" And it really made me cry.
Posted by: Liz | December 19, 2008 at 05:43 PM
Jim Harrison, I'm going to give you the same sort of advice as I did Pig. If you want to claim that I "inaccurately restate other people's arguments," then show examples.
Indeed, some theists (and atheists) would look at the attempts by you and Jim Harrison to defuse the Neville Chamberlain analogy as downright desperate, especially since it wasn't a habitual Dawkins-basher who brought them up in the first place. It looks like an attempt to sweep real problems under the rug.
Pig: "But what I see Greta as saying is closer to this: don't lump very different atheists together, who are united in only on thing - how vocal they are as atheists - as bad atheists."
That may be what Greta is trying to say, but it comes across as saying, "You're not mad at the 'bad' atheists for actually being bad. You're just mad at them for being vocal." Again, it looks like an attempt to sweep real problems under the rug.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | December 20, 2008 at 06:09 AM
Jim Harrison, I'm going to give you the same sort of advice as I did Pig. If you want to claim that I "inaccurately restate other people's arguments," then show examples.
Gosh JJ, good point. Where to find examples ... oh, hey how about right here? My name is not Jim Harrison, you can check. A trivial but utterly unambiguous inaccuracy. I will count it against you because I believe it was you who were the first to cast a "fast and loose with the facts" stone. Or how about:
Indeed, some theists (and atheists) would look at the attempts by you and Jim Harrison to defuse the Neville Chamberlain analogy as downright desperate, especially since it wasn't a habitual Dawkins-basher who brought them up in the first place.
for two more. I have made no attempt (and more to the point, have no intent) to defuse the Champerlain analogy. I have simply pointed out that it is you who want to make it about Nazis. You then go on to make an irrelevant and fallacious argument from authority. Irrelevant because I have never argued for or against the validity of the Chamberlain analogy. Fallacious because it makes no difference to the validity of the Chamberlain analogy if "who brought them up in the first place" is "a habitual Dawkins-basher" or not.
Bonus observation: you also seem to cherry pick your "arguments" in a way that lets you avoid discussing anything of substance at all. e.g. While asserting that I have failed to meet some specious burden to "show some examples" (specious because, really, the examples are obviously right here already) you have failed to address my substantive critique. I'll restate it here:
Even if I grant your assertion that the Chamberlain analogy is an argument ad Naziem you must still go on to demonstrate that such an analogy is fatally flawed by distinguishing religionists from Nazis in a way that invalidates the analogy.
I'm not writing here to persuade you, JJ, because I have concluded that you are not really open to reasoned persuasion. I'm writing in the hopes of making it easier for others to see what hand waving and bad faith arguments look like and I thank you for providing such clear examples.
Posted by: Jim Robinson | December 20, 2008 at 09:37 AM
Ramsey
1: Whether the person who first came up with the argument was a Dawkins basher or not, it doesn't change my basic argument that it is not an argument ad Naziem, as Chamberlain, not being a Nazi, did not represent the Nazis.
The Nazis and Chamberlain don't even represent the same ideas in common usage. They represent opposing ends of the spectrum, Chamberlain being someone who tolerated something that shouldn't have been tolerated and the Nazis being warlike fascists.
It is closer to being an argument ad anti-Naziem.
As to how Greta seems to come across to you, well that's because you aren't trying to understand what people are actually saying, you are trying to find nits to pick so you can come across as "reasonable".
Posted by: Pig | December 20, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Jim Robinson: "My name is not Jim Harrison"
Sorry about that.
Jim Robinson: "While asserting that I have failed to meet some specious burden to 'show some examples' ..."
Asking for evidence is never specious. However, using my absent-mindedness to avoid giving them is.
Jim Robinson: "Even if I grant your assertion that the Chamberlain analogy is an argument ad Naziem you must still go on to demonstrate that such an analogy is fatally flawed by distinguishing religionists from Nazis in a way that invalidates the analogy."
I'd already pointed out to Pig that the so-called appeasers haven't done much in the way of actual appeasing. As for the idea that I should point out how "Nazis are somehow categorically more evil than creationists (or even moderate religionists)," well, I suppose that's only fair, although I'm a bit surprised that it isn't blindingly obvious to you. We certainly don't generally have creationists advocating mass murder, for example.
Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | December 20, 2008 at 11:16 AM
:Robin Edgar, "Atheist Supremacist" is an over-the-top way of likening an atheist to white power rangers (to borrow a turn of phrase from Orac's Respectful Insolence).
Some Atheist Supremacists make White Power Rangers look like Boy Scouts J.J. Even if that was not the case the fact remains that Richard Dawkins and other like-minded atheists believe that atheists are superior human beings to what they call "Faith-heads" and that makes them Atheist Supremacists even if they do not attempt to use violence to impose their Atheist Supremacist ideology on other people.
:How does that put you any less in "Hitler Zombie" territory than Dawkins' Neville Chamberlain comments? This is not good.
Surely that question is much better addressed to Rieux regarding his "Uncle Tom(s)" comments. . .
Posted by: Robin Edgar | December 20, 2008 at 07:22 PM
Robin
Reading what you just posted I can only conclude that you are a bigot.
There is no other word for it. You are a bigot. This is why you got slammed in the UU. This is why you get called names from both sides.
You are a bigot. You are a bigot because ultimately while playing the victim you refuse to see the difference between people just coming out and saying "We don't agree with you" or even "We think our ideas are right, and are better than yours" and people who threaten with violence for not agreeing with them.
You are the precise reason why I say the softly-softly approach to handling religious bigots has not worked.
You are the precise reason we need the Dawkinses and the Harrisses, because you preach a line which is basically hatespeech - and you do it, while whining about what a victim you are.
And you are the precise reason why J.J. gets called an uncle Tom, because his line of reasoning ultimately is there to try and shield you from the scorn and condemnation you would recieve if you had said the same thing about blacks, the same thing about Jews, the same thing about gays, the same thing about any other minority.
Posted by: Pig | December 20, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Robin Edgar:
White Power Rangers are the sort of people who'd pound my head into the sidewalk if they knew my mother was Jewish ... and they might do it even if they didn't know. The worst that so-called "Atheist Supremacists," to borrow your turn of phrase, would do is pile fallacy upon fallacy, which is annoying but hardly life-threatening.Pig:
Pig, you are making no sense here, especially since I was hardly shielding Robin Edgar. My line of reasoning is straightforward: Crappy argument and bigotry don't get a pass, no matter who they are from. If anything, atheists ought to be especially careful about making sure their arguments make sense, since traditionally they have not merely advocated against belief in God but for reason and skepticism. As pointed out in the Bad Idea Blog, "anyone claiming to defend reason as a method is going to come under especially close scrutiny as to their own usage of it: being fun and flippant isn’t going to come off well."Posted by: J. J. Ramsey | December 21, 2008 at 06:09 AM
I'm sorry, everybody -- but I'm pulling the plug on this thread. It has, in my opinion, become irredeemably toxic, and is clearly going nowhere. It's too bad -- the actual topic of the post is one on which I would like to hear people's comments -- but the thread has clearly gone completely and unsalvagably off-topic, so I am closing the comments.
Posted by: Greta Christina | December 21, 2008 at 12:14 PM